PROC. ENTOMOL. SOC. WASH. 92(1), 1990, pp. 109-110 Note The Identity of the Genus Hexaresta Hering (= Hyponeothermara Hardy, n. syn.) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Hering (1941. Siruna Seva 3: 18) de-scribed the monotypic genus Hexaresta and its type species //. juanita from a single specimen of unknown sex, supposedly from Paramaribo, Surinam. I have examined this specimen, deposited in the collection of the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, through the kindness of Dr. H. Schumann. It is actually the pa-laeotropical species described by Walker (1859. J. Proc. Linn. Soc. London, Zool. 3: 119) as Trypeta luultisthga. which is the type species of Hyponeothemara Hardy (1986. Pacif Insects Monog. 42: 71). Hex-aresta is thus a senior synonym of Hypo-neothermara, and juanita Hering is a junior synonym of Hexaresta multistriga (Walk-er), n. comb. The holotype oi juanita is in poor con-dition, with its thorax broken and its ab-domen, most thoracic setae, left foreleg and right hindleg missing. Despite this, it can be clearly recognized as a specimen of multi-striga because of Hardy's (1986) thorough redescription of the latter. I have also com-pared the type with a female from New Guinea in the National Museum of Natural History collection which Hardy determined as multistriga. The juanita type easily runs to Hyponeothermara in the key to the gen-era of Acanthonevrina in Hardy (1986); most of the diagnostic characters in the key, including the shape of the facial carina and the nonsetulose scutellum. can be observed on the juanita holotype. Although the tho-rax is broken, the mesonotal color pattern, which is distinctive of muhistriga, is also evident in the juanita holotype. It differs only slightly from the pattern in Hardy's fig. 44c and that of the female examined; the presutural dark brown spots are slightly larger and the postsutural spots are fused at the dorsocentral setae. The color of the head agrees closely with Hardy's description; there is no frontal vitta as in Hexaresta formosa (Malloch). n. comb., the only other species that Hardy (1986) placed in Hyponeothe-mara. The wings are in good condition and their pattern is almost identical to that of the specimen examined, differing only by the lack of the small marginal hyaline spot between the two large hyaline spots in cell r, (compare also fig. 15 of Hering (1941) with fig. 44d of Hardy ( 1 986)). Hardy ( 1 986) states that this spot is variable in muhistri-ga. Hering's figure is erroneous in showing the base of cell c dark; it is subhyaline in Xhe juanita holotype like most of the rest of the cell. Hexaresta muhistriga almost certainly is not native to the Neotropical Region. Hardy (1986) reported its distribution to be Sula-wesi, the Moluccas, and New Guinea, and species that he considered closely related, such as Hexaresta formosa and the species of Neothemara Malloch and Pseudoneothe-niara Hardy, also occur in the Oriental and Australasian Regions. No closely related species are known from the New World. Hering (1941) accurately recorded the data on the label of the holotype of juanita. which reads "S. Amerika, Surinam, 5.08. Bezirk [district of] Paramaribo, C. Heller S. V." These data are doubtful, however, unless this species has been introduced into Suri-nam. More likely, considering the poor con-dition of ihe juanita holotype, is that it was placed on its present pin after falling off a different one. I am grateful to A. Freidberg (Tel Aviv Univ.). D. E. Hardy (Univ. of Hawaii), and D. A. Nickle and N. E. Woodley (Systematic
BioStor
